Re: [Rendering order] z-depth and 3D effects

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Steve Withall
<steve@withallyourequire.com>wrote:

> At 19/11/2009 07:17 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Steve Withall <steve@withallyourequire.com>
> wrote:
>  The biggest question on the subject of z is conceptual: should we regard
> it as abstract (and solely to enable us to render objects in the order we
> want), or should we regard it as a dimension one can move around in in the
> same way as the first two (and to use for a range of exciting other
> purposes)? (How's that for slanted phrasing!)
>
>
> I think those are really quite different features with very different
> use-cases and implementation requirements. Explicit 3D lets you do a lot of
> cool stuff, but as Dr Olaf pointed out, one of the first things you're going
> to want to do is introduce 3D transforms so that an object can have varying
> depth, and then you need 3D rendering with z-buffers etc.
>
>
> Taking a few careful steps in that direction doesn't mean going the whole
> way.
>

If you don't introduce transforms, then there is little practical difference
between z="3mm" and "z-index:3", except that the units are unnecessary and
therefore confusing.


> On the other hand, some use-cases for reordering 2D layers are not
> addressed by "true 3D" features. For example, jwatt raised the case where
> you have an SVG fragment that wants to reorder some of its children within a
> container, e.g. using CSS z-index,
>
>
> But what does 'reorder' its children mean if not move them in the z
> dimension? In the real world, moving something in front of something else
> means it's nearer. I haven't encountered anyone for whom this behavior is
> insufficient, and who needs extra use cases.  :)
>

Analogies with the "real world" can be misleading... but let's proceed :-).
I agree that "moving them in the z dimension" is what you want, but real
dimensions aren't wanted here. We don't identify pages in a book by their
distance from the cover in millimetres. Ordering objects by numbering them
is very natural.

It's intrusive and inconsiderate to introduce a feature (changing rendering
> order) that barges its way into the third dimension, at best doesn't help
> with 2.5D stuff at all, and at worst wants to claim the third dimension
> exclusively for itself. (I thought this debate might be fun, but I didn't
> imagine it would turn into Star Wars!)
>

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. CSS z-index definitely helps
with "2.5D stuff"; it's widely used in Web development.


> <svg>
> Â  <g style="z-index: 10">...</g>
> Â  <g>...</g>
> Â  <g>...</g>
>
> </svg>
> Suppose you want to copy that fragment into the context of some larger SVG
> document that contains its own uses of z-index. With CSS you can just set
> "z-index:0" on the <svg> fragment and you get the results you want. With
> other proposals, including yours, to avoid layers in the outer document
> being interleaved with layers in the fragment, you have to renumber the
> z-values in the fragment and/or the outer document.
>
>
> I grant that the z values across multiple documents used together need to
> be compatible. But you can say that about x and y values too.
>

Yes. And we have SVG features like "viewport", transforms and other tools to
let us rescale and reposition SVG fragments; we don't force authors to
manually update the coordinates of the included fragment...

And I would argue that authors are more likely to understand and mesh
> multiple sets of z co-ordinates than multiple sets of z-indexes.
>

The goal is to not require authors to "understand and mesh" z-indexes.

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]